Pathfinder 1E So the question is... why is pathfinder selling so well?

[ccooke]

I think if you hang around any RPG forum you'll find that it's massively prejudiced both for *and* against basically every system there is. That's because any forum with enough of a userbase to be interesting is going to have a wide variety of probably disparate viewpoints.

I've noticed far more support for Pathfinder than I've seen hate for it, and after all its broken edges are mostly the ones that existed in 3.5e - some of them a bit less so, some of them more so. It's a flexible game with a lot of depth and flavour, and what's more Paizo have put a huge amount of work into making it a compelling ecosystem above and beyond being a D&D derivative.

As to brokenness, every single RPG system is broken in *some* way. 3.0 (for all it's my favourite before 5e) had some glaring issues that could be exploited. 3.5e fixed many of them, although a little too often by increasing power levels for my taste. PF seems to continue the trend of 3.5, but adds a number of wonderful broken systems all of its own. And you know what? Most of them will never turn up in play.

Hell, my favourite D&D right now is the 5e playtest, and I'll bet that a year after it's released I'll be able to complain that it's broken in some way, whether it remains my favourite or not.

Come to think of it, I'd happily boil it all down to this:

Any system that isn't broken in some way probably isn't interesting to play.

(I'm not saying it's impossible for a system to be *too* broken, but I can't think of a single decent RPG that I haven't seen someone argue is broken in *some* way. Sometimes due to exploits, sometimes due to poor rules in a particular area, sometimes due to bad advice for handling situations... I think what really matters is how easy it is to ignore the broken parts. If you can happily game away for session after session and never notice that a system has sharp edges, it just doesn't matter)

 

[darjr]

THIS is an insidious little piece of marketing genius. If the PFS is any significant portion of the PF player-base, that's certainly gonna bump up sales: "You can use all of these...all you need to do is buy a book or two!"

OGL.

Anyway the other dynamic was that as the RPGA was dying adventure writers were leaving and switching to Pathfinder Society or something else.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I've mostly seen that even detractors will buy a game, if they get a chance to play it. I may prefer C&C to Pathfinder, but if Pathfinder is what someone wants to run, then why not plunk down $50 for it? My tolerance for minutia will allow me to get some enjoyment out of the game, at least for a while.

Also, much as with 4E, you had a lot of people buy into the core set early on, and only realized over time that it was not the game they were looking for. For which they were looking. That doesn't explain current sales as much as past sales, though.

 

[amerigoV]

As a tangent to this thread, you can download Origin's Events Matrix (excel - so Pivot Table away). Pathfinder is by far the largest system in play (200 events over 5 days). Its not easy gathering up all the D&D's (AD&D, spelled out, etc), but all actual D&D that I see has a rather poor showing (4e has only 4 games that I found - 2e actually has the most games at 11. Total around 34 - about the same as my Beloved Savage Worlds). Even Hackmaster is giving D&D a run for their money at 17. As much as I have heard about FATE, not many games (10). Good old CoC has over 65, and Shadowrun at 76 is large. Even Star Wars d6 has 30 events.

I have been wanting to play Dragon Age but it has yet to make an appearance at Origins in the last 3 or so years.

Other ones I see around here with little Origins action:
Numenera has 2 (Paranoia has 5 )
M&M - 16
Traveller has 4 - I presume in those games you just make a PC and not play
Fiasco has 4

Of course, it hard to say data at Origins has any meaning across the market. When I played D&D (really any edition, but especially 3.x) I had no interest in going to Origins even though its in my back yard (so to speak). I only started going when I started playing Savage Worlds.

(note there are a total of 942 Roleplaying events).

 

[Kinak]

There are a lot of tables playing Pathfinder, bringing a lot of new players on board. There are also Pathfinder products on a heck of a lot of shelves, including a very nice Beginner's Box. And you have people like me with subscriptions, who keep Paizo on an even keel month after month.

For my group's part, we like Paizo and never feel bad giving them money. They treat their people well, are extremely inclusive, have frankly amazing customer service, and keep a very high level of quality overall. What's not to like?

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[fjw70]

What's not to like?
Kinak

The rules.

But seriously, the PF rules are fine. I would probably be playing PF if 4e and 5e didn't exist. I just prefer them over PF.

And technically 5e doesn't exist yet, but I would still take the playtest rules over PF.

 

[Morrus]

As a side note, EN World is definitely considered rabidly for 4E, anti-4E, for 3E, anti-4E, for PF, anti-PF, and so on, depending on the observer.

How they perceive it says more about the observer than about the nature of a large generalist forum, which will tend to the average by definition.

Today I got an email from someone declaring they were leaving this forum because it was rabidly pro-Pathfinder and anti-D&D. Ironically, I post this in a thread started by a guy who claims we're rabidly anti-Pathfinder. This has been repeated a thousand times on each possible angle. You see what you want to see, and then confirmation bias reinforces that.

 

[Mallus]

I love pathfinder, I just want to know why people are still playing it, why would anyone play it if it's broken beyond repair as the internet claims it is.

Let's play a game!

Do you love laab (also Anglicized as 'larb') and the films of Wes Anderson?

If so, good! You have taste!

If not, well, then your tastes and mine are different, at least when it comes to certain Laotian/Northern Thai foods and film directors. Now that we've settled that...

... I think one other reason for Pathfinder's success is that it successfully extends the brand of player-centered, rules-heavy, and, most important, technical style of play introduced in 3e.

It appeals to gearheads who play D&D, and would rather stay in the D&D ecosystem than move on to systems like GURPS and HERO.

For the record, I don't think Pathfinder is broken. It's good at what it tries to be good at. I'd play it, and maybe run it, if people I really liked asked nicely.

 

[Kinak]

What's not to like?

The rules.

But seriously, the PF rules are fine. I would probably be playing PF if 4e and 5e didn't exist. I just prefer them over PF.

Yeah, the rules aren't honestly a huge deal to me either.

As a GM, at least, I've got whole shelves of games I'd be fine running. I'd still run 2nd Edition or Rules Cyclopedia D&D if someone wanted me to. Iron Heroes, In Nomine, Old World of Darkness, Shadowrun... heck, even Rifts. Or any of a dozen indie games and homebrew systems.

My players are mostly fine with me running whatever too. So it's mostly the Paizo factor that sways it. Most of our current group, four out of five, really like Paizo. The last really just wants to roll dice and kill things

Without Paizo... we'd probably be using one of my homebrews or Iron Heroes for fantasy gaming. Two of my best players (not coincidentally, my spouse and our best man) really disliked 4e, so we never picked it up. We'll see about 5e, I guess.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Dice4Hire]

I am glad for the people who support Pathfinder, but there are not many or any of them in my neck of the woods so I have no opportunity to play it. If I had a choice of Pathfinder or D&D I would take D&D every time, but if it were Pathfinder or nothing, I would go for Pathfinder.

Pathfinder is a good game, it is just not that popular around here.